So we've got books, movies, and music, so why not video games? Go on, admit it, you play games. Talk about your favorite games, what you're playing at the moment, games that are coming out, whatever. Don't be afraid to step on peoples toes, either. Just because they like a game doesn't mean that you have to sing it's praises. Just discuss.

Vote Pieces for Pope! She didn't buy me off with the funny hat, I swear!... She made me a cardinal.

The Legend of Zelda games have amazing graphics. The plot is similar enough in each that it's quickly understandable, but different enough that it's exciting every time.The puzzles are complex enough that the game is difficult to play if you don't try hard enough, but simple enough that anyone can understand them given 15 minutes. The puzzles in games like Zork and Myst and whatever are too hard for normal people to solve. If you have to spend six hours solving one stupid puzzle to get through the third dungeon, it takes all the fun out of the game, and makes you feel like an idiot (which you probably are). Those of us who are less gifted in critical thinking and problem solving might want to have fun, too.The side-quests and collection goals in each game are vast enough that you can play for hours after you beat the game.The characters are classic and iconic, and there is loads of characterisation for each character.

Ganondorf, the FSM-damned king of motherfucking evil. 'Nuff fuckin' said.

If you haven't already, you should play Twilight Princess. It's about a million times better than OOT. The puzzles and bosses are a bit easier, but if you like the characterisation, the graphics and the plot it's worth it.

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

If graphics were at all important, then fine, that's bloody wonderful.

Zankou wrote:The plot is similar enough in each that it's quickly understandable, but different enough that it's exciting every time.

I'd prefer to have a plot that's exciting precisely because I don't know how it went in fifteen other games. For all it's faults, on thing the Final Fantasy games got right was never repeating a plotline. Most fantasy games (and any other sci-fi/fantasy media, for that matter) have similar enough stories that they're easily understood, but they manage to do it in a way that feels new, that puts a unique spin on it. If you're going to use the same characters, basic plotline, world, etc., and especially if you're going to consider the series as having a chronology, which the Zelda games do, then you need to have the story progress. Have events from the last game coming back and affecting the current game. Have characters recognize the main character outside of his hometown. Have the series progress chronologically, rather than making minor changes to the same plot and calling it progression.

Zankou wrote:The puzzles are complex enough that the game is difficult to play if you don't try hard enough, but simple enough that anyone can understand them given 15 minutes. The puzzles in games like Zork and Myst and whatever you're talking about are too hard for normal people to solve. If you have to spend six hours solving one stupid puzzle to get through the third dungeon, it takes all the fun out of the game, and makes you feel like an idiot (which you probably are). Those of us who are less gifted in critical thinking and problem solving might want to have fun, too.

Fine. Those of use who gifted in critical thinking and desirous of a challenge reserve the right not to care for a game that doesn't fulfill those desires. Personally, I think that the dumbing down of puzzles has resulted in the dumbing down of gamers, many of whom can't even get through a game without a walkthrough or strategy guide, these days.

Zankou wrote:The side-quests and collection goals in each game are vast enough that you can play for hours after you beat the game.

Personally, I don't see much of a point in playing a video game without a plot. I play games for the same reason that I read or watch movies: The story. After the plot ends, I don't see any reason to engage in pointless fetch quests and collection runs without any real motive.

The characters are classic and iconic, and there is loads of characterisation for each character.

The characters are stock and cliche, and don't have anything to set them apart from the basic hero/princess/villain except for their fashion sense. If you're going to have a silent protagonist, your other characters and dialogue have to be good enough to make up for it, and preferably to make that character seem real despite his lack of apparent personality (Like Half Life did).

Zankou wrote:If you haven't already, you should play Twilight Princess. It's about a million times better than OOT. The puzzles and bosses are a bit easier, but if you like the characterisation, graphics, and plot then it is worth it.

I might give it a try, if I ever get bored and drunk enough to be talked into buying a Wii for the sake of a single game.

Vote Pieces for Pope! She didn't buy me off with the funny hat, I swear!... She made me a cardinal.

Oh man. I have never been addicted to a game like I was that game. And I got it for free too.

“We are often hesitant to look at other faiths or to examine our own critically because we feel that, in doing so, we are being disloyal to our own deeply felt convictions. ... And yet our beliefs are not worth very much if they cannot stand up to any scrutiny.” -- James Livingston.

If graphics were at all important, then fine, that's bloody wonderful.

I'd actually like to point out that TP, at least, doesn't have great graphics. I mean, it's pretty enough, but it's not exactly what one would expect of this generation of games. Though, that's just because they took too long releasing it, and ported it. It has awesome graphics for the generation it was supposed to be in, but not for this one. But, as FBC implied, they're not that important.

fueledbycoffee wrote:Fine. Those of use who gifted in critical thinking and desirous of a challenge reserve the right not to care for a game that doesn't fulfill those desires. Personally, I think that the dumbing down of puzzles has resulted in the dumbing down of gamers, many of whom can't even get through a game without a walkthrough or strategy guide, these days.

I don't think they're dumbed down, just not so complicated that they interfere with progress at all. And how is it that simpler puzzles makes dumber gamers? If I wanted a puzzle game, I'd go buy a puzzle game. Zelda is primarily adventure, and I don't want puzzles to slow down my adventuring too much.

fueledbycoffee wrote:

Zankou wrote:The side-quests and collection goals in each game are vast enough that you can play for hours after you beat the game.

Personally, I don't see much of a point in playing a video game without a plot. I play games for the same reason that I read or watch movies: The story. After the plot ends, I don't see any reason to engage in pointless fetch quests and collection runs without any real motive.

Side quests don't necessarily have to have nothing to do with the plot. Look at Tales of Symphonia. A lot of the side quests told were used to show you more about the characters. So, if you didn't care about the characters, you could skip the side quests, but if you did, they were there to add some depth.

Zankou wrote:If you haven't already, you should play Twilight Princess. It's about a million times better than OOT. The puzzles and bosses are a bit easier, but if you like the characterisation, graphics, and plot then it is worth it.

No!!! OoT was the epitome of awesome Zelda, it was majestic, and was not outdone by TP! OoT's graphics are incomparable to TP's because of the amount of time that passed between the release of the two. Also, graphics aren't so important unless you're a spoiled modern gamer with no imagination whatsoever. They are a perk in a game, not a necessity.

It has to do with what people are used to. Gamers these days are used to simple, uncomplicated puzzles. As such, their puzzle-solving skills have atrophied, and when faced with a game that's as famously complicated as Myst, they aren't used to complex, multi-tiered puzzles that require lateral and logical thought, and they don't know how to think their way through it. As such, rather than being the fun, incredible game that Myst is, it feels like a chore, and they go back to playing games where they puzzles are about as complicated as "red key goes in red door". Thus, point-n-click adventure games die, and the Halo generation emerges.

Elvalia wrote:Side quests don't necessarily have to have nothing to do with the plot. Look at Tales of Symphonia. A lot of the side quests told were used to show you more about the characters. So, if you didn't care about the characters, you could skip the side quests, but if you did, they were there to add some depth.

That's the good kind of sidequest. I have no problem with those, and in fact, they can enrich the game. What I'm talking about is pointless quests that have nothing to do with the plot, the kind where Joe Bob gives you a potion for trekking all over kingdom come. The GTA-style games suffer extensively from this, the absolute worst offender (recently) is Mercenaries 2. You take a quest from FACTION-C to kill NPC-A, who belongs to FACTION-B. There's absolutely no point to this, as it has no plot significance or real effect on the world, and it makes FACTION-B hate you, and they give you the next story mission, so you have to kill NPC-B from FACTION-C, who now hate you, and you spend the next three hours taking these various sidequests to make them like you, and eventually, everyone either hates you to the point where you can't take the missions and you essentially fail the main story, or you just wasted three hours on missions that had nothing to do with anything. It's a cheap, lazy way for developers to extend playtime, and say that after the main story there's stuff to do, so the game seems like is has replay value. This little trick has caused me to hate more games in the last two years than during the entire 1990's.

Wawizzle wrote:My favorite video game ever is Viva Pinata for the XBOX 360.

I never got a chance to play it.

I'd say my favorite games ever would be Planescape: Torment, Riven, Sam & Max Hit The Road, Grim Fandango, and System Shock 2. If you've never played them, you must.

Vote Pieces for Pope! She didn't buy me off with the funny hat, I swear!... She made me a cardinal.

If graphics were at all important, then fine, that's bloody wonderful.

They are important enough.

Zankou wrote:The plot is similar enough in each that it's quickly understandable, but different enough that it's exciting every time.

I'd prefer to have a plot that's exciting precisely because I don't know how it went in fifteen other games. For all it's faults, on thing the Final Fantasy games got right was never repeating a plotline. Most fantasy games (and any other sci-fi/fantasy media, for that matter) have similar enough stories that they're easily understood, but they manage to do it in a way that feels new, that puts a unique spin on it. If you're going to use the same characters, basic plotline, world, etc., and especially if you're going to consider the series as having a chronology, which the Zelda games do, then you need to have the story progress. Have events from the last game coming back and affecting the current game. Have characters recognize the main character outside of his hometown. Have the series progress chronologically, rather than making minor changes to the same plot and calling it progression.

The story does progress, and the plot is unique each time. It's like saying the plot of each harry Potter book is the same, because they have to accomplish something and beat Voldemort in each book. It's called a "recurring villain".

Zankou wrote:The puzzles are complex enough that the game is difficult to play if you don't try hard enough, but simple enough that anyone can understand them given 15 minutes. The puzzles in games like Zork and Myst and whatever you're talking about are too hard for normal people to solve. If you have to spend six hours solving one stupid puzzle to get through the third dungeon, it takes all the fun out of the game, and makes you feel like an idiot (which you probably are). Those of us who are less gifted in critical thinking and problem solving might want to have fun, too.

Fine. Those of use who gifted in critical thinking and desirous of a challenge reserve the right not to care for a game that doesn't fulfill those desires. Personally, I think that the dumbing down of puzzles has resulted in the dumbing down of gamers, many of whom can't even get through a game without a walkthrough or strategy guide, these days.

Agreed.

Zankou wrote:The side-quests and collection goals in each game are vast enough that you can play for hours after you beat the game.

Personally, I don't see much of a point in playing a video game without a plot. I play games for the same reason that I read or watch movies: The story. After the plot ends, I don't see any reason to engage in pointless fetch quests and collection runs without any real motive.

Agreed.

The characters are classic and iconic, and there is loads of characterisation for each character.

The characters are stock and cliche, and don't have anything to set them apart from the basic hero/princess/villain except for their fashion sense. If you're going to have a silent protagonist, your other characters and dialogue have to be good enough to make up for it, and preferably to make that character seem real despite his lack of apparent personality (Like Half Life did).

There are more than two characters, and each Zelda was slightly different, as was each Link. If you play them enthusiastically, you realise that Link is the ultimate hero because he goes from an orphan kid to The Hero of Time.

Zankou wrote:If you haven't already, you should play Twilight Princess. It's about a million times better than OOT. The puzzles and bosses are a bit easier, but if you like the characterisation, graphics, and plot then it is worth it.

I might give it a try, if I ever get bored and drunk enough to be talked into buying a Wii for the sake of a single game.

The Gamecube is better.

Elvalia wrote:

Zankou wrote:If you haven't already, you should play Twilight Princess. It's about a million times better than OOT. The puzzles and bosses are a bit easier, but if you like the characterisation, graphics, and plot then it is worth it.

No!!! OoT was the epitome of awesome Zelda, it was majestic, and was not outdone by TP! OoT's graphics are incomparable to TP's because of the amount of time that passed between the release of the two. Also, graphics aren't so important unless you're a spoiled modern gamer with no imagination whatsoever. They are a perk in a game, not a necessity.

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

Zankou wrote:If you haven't already, you should play Twilight Princess. It's about a million times better than OOT. The puzzles and bosses are a bit easier, but if you like the characterisation, graphics, and plot then it is worth it.

No!!! OoT was the epitome of awesome Zelda, it was majestic, and was not outdone by TP! OoT's graphics are incomparable to TP's because of the amount of time that passed between the release of the two. Also, graphics aren't so important unless you're a spoiled modern gamer with no imagination whatsoever. They are a perk in a game, not a necessity.

TP had better gameplay and a more extensive world. It also had Midna.

Midna > Navi.

And the size of the world obviously has nothing to do with any technological advancements that give companies the ability to make larger environments. Gameplay-wise, that's your preference. I actually liked them both in that respect.

You're right about Navi. But at least she wasn't as much of a pain in the ass as Tatl.

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

Zankou 2.0 wrote:The story does progress, and the plot is unique each time. It's like saying the plot of each harry Potter book is the same, because they have to accomplish something and beat Voldemort in each book. It's called a "recurring villain".

There are more than two characters, and each Zelda was slightly different, as was each Link. If you play them enthusiastically, you realise that Link is the ultimate hero because he goes from an orphan kid to The Hero of Time.

Zelda sucks cock.

And Gordon Freeman goes from total nerd scientist to geekily kicking more ass than John McClane. Conan goes from slave to emperor. Aragorn goes from wandering warrior to king of men. Jesus went from carpenter's kid to telling the sea to go fuck itself. The underdog hero has been a literary archetype for as long as there have been stories. Link isn't unique or ultimate at all. Oh, and classy.

Zankou wrote:Midna > Navi.

That I will agree with. After the fifth "HEY! LISTEN!" I wanted to take a drill to the cartridge. From what I saw, Midna was kind of annoying as well, though.

Zankou 2.0 wrote:Anyone ever play Ratchet and Clank?

No. I was a Jak and Daxter kinda guy.

Elvalia wrote:Tenchu anybody?

Played the first one, wasn't terribly impressed.

Vote Pieces for Pope! She didn't buy me off with the funny hat, I swear!... She made me a cardinal.